Please see discussion on Commons for a proposal to upgrade Commons' version of this template, to include an hCalendar date-time-stamp and location information in an hCard microformat. Any such changes should be mirrored in this template. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved the description of the template from the template itself to the talk page. A template such as this has the potential to be used on many, many pages, and any modifications to it could possibly slow down the entire site. Having the usage description here on the talk page allows us to update the documentation without modifying the template itself. ~MDD4696 00:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved to /doc Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the permission field read "Copyright status" or "Licence": we don't use images with Wikipedia-specific permission any more. Physchim62 (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the location field? For example, see Image:Hammarlund Comet Pro.JPG which used to show "Location" in the template.--mikeu (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The location parameter is still asked for on the file/image upload page. It is useful in that context. Is there a good reason it's not actually used by the template? --J Clear (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I'd like to suggest that the equal signs in the template be lined up for aesthetic reasons, like this:

{{Information
| Description    = 
| Source         = 
| Date           =  
| Author         = 
| Permission     = 
| other_versions = 
}}

Also, why is the last parameter "other_versons" rather than capitalized "Other_versions" like the others? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 Not done - in the template itself, it's impractical - there's so much else there (if this then that) that it wouldn't be noticed. If you're talking about the documentation - feel free to do it yourself. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please can the template be updated to the following:

{| summary="A standardized table providing complete information about the file, including description of what it shows and how it was made, copyright status and source." class="toccolours" style="width: 100%" cellpadding="2"
! style="background: #ccf; text-align: right; vertical-align: top; padding-right: 0.4em; width: 15%" id="fileinfotpl_desc" |Description
|
{{ #if: {{{Description|{{{description|}}}}}} | {{{Description|{{{description}}}}}} | {{Description missing}} }}
|- valign="top"
! style="background: #ccf; text-align: right; padding-right: 0.4em" id="fileinfotpl_src" | Source
|
{{#if:{{{Source|{{{source|}}}}}}|{{{Source{{{source|}}}}}}|[[Category:Images without source|{{PAGENAME}}]] No source specified. Please edit this image description and provide a source.}}
|- valign="top"
! style="background: #ccf; text-align: right; padding-right: 0.4em; white-space: nowrap" id="fileinfotpl_date" | Date
|
{{{Date|{{{date}}}}}}
|- valign="top"
! style="background: #ccf; text-align: right; padding-right: 0.4em" id="fileinfotpl_aut" | Author
|
{{ #if: {{{Author|{{{author|}}}}}} | {{{Author|{{{author}}}}}} | {{Description missing|author information}} }}
|- valign="top"
! style="background: #ccf; text-align: right; padding-right: 0.4em" id="fileinfotpl_perm" | Permission<br /><small>([[Commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia|Reusing this image]])</small>
|
{{#if:{{{Permission|{{{permission|}}}}}}|{{{Permission|{{{permission}}}}}}|See below.}}
{{#switch: {{{other_versions|}}}
|   =
| - =
| none =
| #default = <tr valign="top"><td style="background: #ccf; text-align: right; padding-right: 0.4em; font-weight: bold" id="fileinfotpl_ver">Other versions</td><td>
{{{other_versions}}}</td></tr>}}
|}<noinclude>
{{Documentation, template}}</noinclude>

This will permit redirection of Template:Image information, make the template more userfriendly, and generally help out. Happy‑melon 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres^{t.l} 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}There was a misprint: {{{Source{{{source|}}}}}} should be {{{Source|{{{source|}}}}}}. Check the effect on Image:Devanagari INSCRIPT.png.--Imz (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 03:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} In the template, please change Category:Images without source to Category:Images with unknown source. "Images without source" is the name of the equivalent category on Commons, while English Wikipedia uses the latter category. Also, in the "please provide a source" message that shows if a source isn't given, please wikilink back to WP:CITE#IMAGE so the uploader knows what we're looking for. Kelly ^hi! 21:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the recommendations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I'm so sorry I didn't notice this yesterday - the "Category:Images with unknown source" found in the template needs to have "includeonly" tags placed around it so that the template itself isn't included in the category. And while in there, please change {{documentation, template}} to just {{documentation}}. Thank you! Kelly ^hi! 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also done. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know why images like Image:Yu gi oh ver1.jpg are being placed in Category:Images lacking a description? The description parameter seems to be completed. -- 05:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see that it requires the author parameter to be filled in. Question, would anyone object if I removed the following line:

{{ #if: {{{Author|{{{author|}}}}}} | {{{Author|{{{author}}}}}} | {{Description missing|author information}} }}

making it so that images without the author field filled in are now ignored? If not, I would suggest moving to another category like Category:Images lacking an author or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Can something do the edit requested above? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Created Category:Images lacking an author. Do with it as you will :D. Happy‑melon 08:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reword template to be less agressive, in particular change no source field to something like. 'No source currently specified, Can you help provide one?'

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:Per, if you require an edit, could you please give the exact details of your suggestion - and please demonstrate a clear consensus decision to make the edit.  Chzz  ►  05:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

As an uncontroversial improvement, I'd like to request to change the parameter "other-versions" to a capitalised "Other_versions" as all other parameters. That would mean changing

{{#switch: {{{other_versions|}}}
|   =
| - =
| none =
| #default = <tr valign="top"><td style="background: #ccf; text-align: right; padding-right: 0.4em; font-weight: bold" id="fileinfotpl_ver">Other versions</td><td>
{{{other_versions}}}</td></tr>}}

to

{{#switch: {{{Other_versions|{{{other_versions|}}}}}}
|   =
| - =
| none =
| #default = <tr valign="top"><td style="background: #ccf; text-align: right; padding-right: 0.4em; font-weight: bold" id="fileinfotpl_ver">Other versions</td><td>
{{{Other_versions|{{{other_versions}}}}}}</td></tr>}}

Of course the documentation should be changed accordingly, which you can do, or I can do as well. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the code, and I see in the template code that all the other parameters already support being fed with both upper and lower case first character in the parameter names.

But for the documentation I think we should go the other way. This template needs to be compatible with the same template at Commons to make moving of images to Commons easier. I see that the Commons version support both upper and lower case first character for all its parameters, but its documentation recommend lower case. And the current praxis here at Wikipedia is to use all lower case for parameter names in most templates.

I haven't had breakfast yet so I'll leave the edit to some other admin that is more awake (I tend to screw things up before breakfast).

Oh, and isn't this template also added by the file upload interface? Then we should consider updating the defaults it uses there.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I subscribe to David Göthberg's suggestion to use lowercase parameters in the documentation, and since that can be changed even now, I shall do so. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I would very much like to know the location of those file upload interface templates. I have been looking for them. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked around. Oddly enough the default {{Information|...}} in the file upload interface is not added by a system message, instead it is added directly in the URLs used on Wikipedia:Upload. We should update those URLs too. But first we should announce this on Wikipedia talk:Upload.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We should indeed update those URLs as well. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To make it even nicer, we could use

{{#switch: {{{Other_versions|{{{other_versions|{{{other versions|}}}}}}}}}
|   =
| - =
| none =
| #default = <tr valign="top"><td style="background: #ccf; text-align: right; padding-right: 0.4em; font-weight: bold" id="fileinfotpl_ver">Other versions</td><td>
{{{Other_versions|{{{other_versions|{{{other versions|}}}}}}}}}</td></tr>}}

Then we could remove that underscore and make the parameter "other versions". I once was involved in doing that to a few templates connected with Template:Album_cover_fur, together with User:Rich Farmbrough. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I was looking for is where the code for files is determined. In very simple words: where should I make an edit to add a whiteline in front of the == License == header in e.g. File:Vatteluttu.png (and all other files), which reads:

== Summary ==
My own photograph
== Licensing ==
{{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers|migration=relicense}}

Debresser (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I added two missing pipes "|" in your code above.

I agree that using the parameter name without underscore is nicer. Note that the documentation at Commons currently recommends "other_fields=", but the Commons version of the template can handle the parameter without underscore too, and the Commons doc has been changed several times lately without any discussion.

And I looked around, the "== Licensing ==" text is not especially configurable since it seems most of it is hardcoded in the MediaWiki code, only the word "Licensing" itself can be edit in MediaWiki:License-header. And once a file has been uploaded that text is stored on the file page itself, so a change in MediaWiki:License-header only affects later uploads.

And I have announced this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Upload.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Y Done - I added the above code to the template, and did some other minor fixes. Sorry that it took so long.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good change. The first pipe I forgot, but the second pipe wasn't in the original code either. That is why I didn't add it.

Why did you move the protection template to the template itself? I prefer them on the documentation pages, and that is also what it says on Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Templates. Not that it is an important enough issue to change it back, but I don't see why it has to be moved into the template either. Or did you add it to the template first, and didn't notice that there was one in the documentation already?

So what should I do, meaning probably "where should I post", to have that whiteline in front of the License header? Debresser (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the protection template: I have copied that part of your message to Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Template protection and responded there.

And regarding the "== Licensing ==" header: That would take first a discussion on the tech Village Pump to get input from more users and achieve consensus, then a bugzilla bug to report it to the devs. But it would mean a change to all Wikimedia projects, and many users prefer to not have space around the headers (but I like space), so I think your chance to get the change is about 0.5%, while your risk of annoying a lot of people is about 70%. So I recommend you forget about it. Sorry.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please fix Presently, this template generates the text "Reusing this image" but the Image: namespace was renamed File: several months ago and this template is generated if someone is uploading audio, images, or video. I suggest amending it to read "Reusing this file." Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} In the source line, please replace the WP:CITE#IMAGE link with Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia, as the former has become dead. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

{{Information}} uses HTML table code to conditionally display the "Other versions" table row. This makes the template non-portable to non-Wikimedia wikis that are not running HTML Tidy the same way as Wikipedia does. A portable version is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki/Template:Information. See also:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki#Special templates
• Wikipedia:Conditional tables

--Teratornis (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For whatever reason, this template (and, actually, all other templates) aren't showing up on the local pages of Commons-hosted images (ie, most free images - see here, for example). At the same time, the template is viewable on Commons-hosted images on their Commons pages (see here), as well as English Wikipedia-hosted images (ie, fair use images, free files that haven't been migrated to Commons - see here). I doubt this is exactly the right place to ask about this, but does anyone have any idea where and why the templates have gone, or, if not, where else to ask about this? I'll try the Village Pump too, I suppose... Anyhow, thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 19:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please consider changing the recomended notifcation for missing authorship to use {{add-author-I}} instead of {{add-desc-I}} as the former was worded to be more specific. Thank you Sfan00 IMG

(talk) 13:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ammended Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for above request, is that it allows a more targeted notification to be sent to users, and could also be used as a way of encouraging upoloaders to add sourcing/authourship in less agressive manner than CSD for no-source. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Added a couple of civilities, you seemed to forget. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. For future info, this actually involved a change to Template:Description missing not this one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The doc does not make it clear to editors exactly where to insert the license tag. I think the intention is to use the general form of |Permission={{PD-US}} but that's only after quite a bit of guesswork. Can we please clear this up? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a template from Category:Wikipedia image copyright templates is placed on the file's page. The confusion may arise from the difference between this template and Commons:Template:Information. Senator2029║talk 18:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC) SENATOR2029 talk 22:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please add a new field to the template

{{#if:{{{Additional information|{{{additional_information|}}}}}} | {{{Additional information|{{{additional_information}}}}}}

This field is intended to hold additional information relevant to the file that doesn't fit elsewhere. Please see also Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:LewisAsTheTyro.jpg for where this is coming from. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you about this. I'm not quite sure where you want the new code to go - perhaps you could work up a version quickly in the sandbox? This template has more than 100,000 transclusions, so I want to get it right first time if possible. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I placed the field in the sandbox version. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some fixes to the sandbox version. You can see the results at Template:Information/testcases - was this the effect that you had in mind? Let me know if there are any issues with wording or the placement of the section, etc., and I'll fix them before putting the code up live. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The main thing that came up during the discussion at WP:NFCR was that it would good to have a field that can hold information that is relevant to determining a files copyright status so that later it can be seen why some file was tagged as public domain or non-free or similar information in order to avoid bringing up the same stuff over and over again. Thanks very much for implementing this edit request. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Done Ok, it's up live. Could you update the documentation? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Best. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello – Here's a {{Navbox}} version of this template that duplicates the current version except for:

• setting the same vertical alignment for the "Description", "Source", "Date" etc headers (groupnames) and their contents (lists);
• using italics to display the two default messages.

Any objection to my requesting that this version becomes the main template? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Request now made below. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 September 2014

Please replace the current version with this this version in the sandbox (current as of this message) per the above. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the date field missing from the new version? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• No and yes; it's there, but, like "Other versions" and "Additional information", it wouldn't've appeared until given a value. I've now amended it so that it appears regardless (i.e. as in the current main template) and updated the sandbox link above. Thanks for flagging, Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you! Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that this change was positive in terms of performance. Why transcluding an additional template? --Leyo 21:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Which template do you mean..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  Navbox. --Leyo 17:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Ohh, you're thinking of the container, not something within. (I guess I was looking for some wood rather than considering the trees.) I suppose the same could be asked of any metatemplate – and if {{Navbox}}'s use was detrimental, I imagine it would've been amended or superseded before now. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This change broke compliance with the Commons machine-parsable metadata schema which requires the ids to be on the td/th element, not inside it. That in turn breaks the ability of tools like Media Viewer to display description and other data. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tgr (WMF): Although I am not a fan of MV, I guess that others are, so Done Reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! (Commons' metadata standard is actually much, much older than MediaViewer and used by other tools as well, such as the PDF exporter.) --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Version with previous Navbox-style formatting (but still the same wikitable). Please update the main template accordingly. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Has this been OK'd by Tgr (WMF) (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That matches c:COM:MRD as far as I can tell. Thanks for amending! --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sardanaphalus: I got your note. But the main template was amended recently; have these changes been incorporated into the sandbox? That is, if a straight copy from the sandbox is made, will there be a regression? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Information/sandbox&oldid=632756458. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

PS "Information" is surely too general a name for this template – do you think something like "File information" would be approved instead..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The choice of template name was not my decision. If you want it changed, there is WP:RM: but I would guess that the intention is to use the same name as the equivalent template on commons - just as the template layout, ids and parameter names are supposed to be the same. Any change must be very carefully considered and not made unilaterally.

But I do not like the way that wholesale changes to the internals of this template have been incorporated into the proposed version when the intent is apparently cosmetic - to change some of the alignment and italicisation. All those additional comments and newlines make it very difficult to compare old with new; this is very much "change for the sake of it". --Redrose64 (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hope you are happy with this. Since producing the original amended version of the template, I've started making edits for the sake of code readability etc as separate from (and following) edits amending templates' actions etc.

The visible changes here are cosmetic, but, as your mention of alignment and italicisation indicates, very much not "change for the sake of it". Similarly, the motivation for the changes to the code layout/formatting was to reduce its otherwise monolithic, homogenous appearance.

As regards the template's name, I hadn't thought that it might've been your decision. I'd forgotten, though, the interwiki aspect.

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What if you provide the diff for the suggested change and an example (use case) with the current and with the suggested version? Tgr (WMF) would then need to have a look, too. --Leyo 14:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Tgr (WMF) has indicated that the amended version looks compliant; a comparison between the sandbox and current versions is on the testcases page. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Tgr (WMF) (talk · contribs) indicated that the version as it stood at the time of his comment (which was 22:00, 9 October 2014) matched: and as I pointed out at 13:02, 30 October 2014, there have been subsequent changes, and I see no indication that Tgr (WMF) is also happy with those. I'm still unconvinced of the need to make cosmetic changes which will necessarily put over 150,000 pages into the job queue. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I've left Tgr another message. As regards the job queue, give the updating prompted by changes to this template a low / the lowest priority..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no means to prioritise individual jobs in the queue. The queue as a whole can be prioritised, but you need developer rights in order to do that. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Still looks fine as far as the machine-readable data goes. Re: job queue, I think the standard advice applies - if you think those cosmetic changes are useful (I haven't looked at them), do them, the queue can handle it. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging again. I believe the changes are useful, so, hopefully, they may now be incorporated. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The above has now been pending for the best part of three months and has twice been endorsed by the third party (Tgr (WMF)) requested. Would someone now implement it, please? Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Oppose using the requested replacement. I think that the middle alignment looks greatly out of place and the proposal doesn't address the lack of HTML5 compliance. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

1. "please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template."
     Not appropriate: please think for a moment before using the {{EP}} template. (What do you think all the above is about?)
2. "the middle alignment looks greatly out of place"
    ...but, by opposing the above, you're happy to maintain the mismatch between the alignment of the current template's lefthand ("label") and righthand ("data") sides..?
3. "and the proposal doesn't address the lack of HTML5 compliance."
    Is that so (despite, for instance, Tgr (WMF)'s endorsements)..? Wikipedia:So fix it, then, rather than just dismissing the request.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is still no consensus to implement this cosmetic change to this template and the cellpadding="2" is still not HTML5 compliant. Anyways, marking this request as done until there is a consensus, and since I'm not the only editor that disapproves, I'm not the only one you need to convince. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You need convincing that a consistent vertical-align across each row of this template – whether top, middle, bottom, subterranean, etc – is worthwhile..? And who else needs convincing – and about what exactly..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• There are objections to the change in this discussion. I am declining the edit-request. Please resubmit once there is consensus for the change. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't find in Wikipedia:Citing sources neither any section with this title nor any information about how to cite sources in image's page. Please remove the wikilink (or at least that part '#Multimedia'). --Z 09:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I second this. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia just points to Wikipedia:Citing sources. The anchor should either be added at the project page, or the hash should be removed on the template and replaced with a relevant link. 2602:306:36D8:9560:7862:C1BE:6E46:E08A (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it this template adding this category whenever the permission field is left blank (thus defaulting to displaying the text "see below")? We have it incorrectly appearing on files such as this one, where the licensing tag is below under a licensing header, as we've done for years. And I don't see a point to either forcing editors to cram the often-large license tag within the information template, nor to redundantly stating it within the permission field when "see below" works just fine. postdlf (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}} is adding this maintenance category.

These license templates (among others) need an addition similar to this and this. --Leyo 21:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for figuring that out. Perhaps the category applied to those templates should be renamed to something more clear like "files using licensing templates that aren't yet machine-readable"? At least until someone versed with the code (not I) fixes the template... postdlf (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The category name may be changed in MediaWiki:Commonsmetadata-trackingcategory-no-license, but keep in mind that also file pages without any license template are categorized. --Leyo 21:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but those functions should be separated, as when the problem is the template lacking the right code it doesn't make much sense to categorize every file that transcludes that template as lacking something, and in the same category as files lacking any license template no less. postdlf (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The license templates just need to be adapted. WOSlinker may be willing to help out. --Leyo 00:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've added tags to most of the PD licenses. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I had hoped that the number of files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license would decrease from 85,xxx to more than 77,xxx. --Leyo 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

On Commons, there is a tag {{Private correspondence}} which can be used in the Source field to indicate that the image was provided directly via OTRS and has not been previously published anywhere. I was not able to find an equivalent tag to use on Wikipedia for the same situation. Is there one? Or can we develop and implement a Wikipedia equivalent to the Private correspondence tag on Commons? Or is there some other tag that should be used on Wikipedia in such instances? (and then what would happen if the file were subsequently moved to Commons?). Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 00:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The categories Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source and Category:Files lacking an author should only be populated by files but not by userscripts and similar things. The template should use {{file other|[[Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source]]}} and {{file other|[[Category:Files lacking an author]]}} so that these categories only contain files. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: It's not a problem with this template, but an unfortunate feature of user script (and css) pages that any code that looks vaguely like Wiki markup will be interpreted by the MediaWiki parser as if it were real Wiki markup: templates are invisibly expanded and categories populated. This behaviour is easily defeated - since it (almost) always happens in a string literal, all that need be done is to split the string (i.e. alter "{{..." to "{"+"{..."), so that pairs of braces or square brackets do not exist, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

By fixing the template, the userscripts would be removed from the categories. Note that the categories also contain a few talk pages, user pages and other pages which contain this template or FUR templates which transclude the same categories. By inserting {{file other}}, I can't think of anything that we'd break, but we'd solve the problem which makes inappropriate pages end up in the categories.

It is unfortunate that you can't easily see that a userscript has been categorised when looking at the script itself. I guess that a lot of users don't realise that their scripts appear in categories. I prefer to put 'nowiki' on my userscripts so that I don't accidentally nominate my userscripts for speedy deletion or something if I need to include template wikicode in a script. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This has author, description, but for some older images it's sometimes useful to know where it came from jurisdiction wise so that the licensing tags can be double checked, and term lengths ( which vary) can be determined. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think that this would need to be co-ordinated with Commons. If we add fields which do not exist in c:Template:Information, then information may be lost when files are transferred there. I'm also not sure if this field would be useful as there normally would be a copyright tag from the country of origin if the file is in the public domain there. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It sure doesn't seem to be working at File:Charles W. Sandman plaque.jpg. Any idea why not? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: There were eighteen non-breaking spaces inside the {{information}} template. The MediaWiki template parser does not interpret these as whitespace, but as literal characters, so instead of (for example)

| source      = Own work

you effectively had

| source      = Own work

and the template source does not contain code like {{{source      |}}} so it's not a valid parameter. Generally speaking, non-breaking spaces are sometimes valid after the equals sign of a named parameter, but never before it. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. Not sure where they came from, though. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Documentation and Template:This is a redirect include some code that causes them to display a protection template whenever they are posted on a protected page. I wonder if it may make sense to include such a function on this template as well as it's posted on basically every file page, and it is at least vaguely relevant as this template contains information about the file, having it transclude (optically separate) information on protection status is at least tangentially relevant. I believe under the terms of Wikipedia:Template editor this idea should be offered up for possible contestation first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support this is certainly feasible, and I would say desirable also. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  Added the code after one week with no contestation, hopefully nothing broke. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It did break... It seems fine on non-protected pages, but protected ones show garbled template/CSS. Template:Information/doc#Example and File:La_fortuna.jpg vs. Template:Information#Example and File:Alpendohle_TFA.jpg.--Yeryry (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed by adding a newline. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible to update this template so it automatically lists "unsourced images" under an appropriate CSD? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Among other things, I am not sure that "source field unfilled" can be equated to "unsourced" for the purpose of CSD, as was noted with File:Rosary bead c 1420-50.jpg. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Amend the caption for the Author field to read Author(s), Creator(s) or Copyright Holder. This would simplify filling the field in many instances, where a specific individual author is not known. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. While the instructions already say If no individual person is known, use the name of the institution that owns, published or released the file., I'm not willing to make such a large change to such a highly visible template without further discussion, especially since that change would make this template diverge from its counterpart on Commons. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

A less invasive solution might be to mirror Commons:Template:Information field here to allow syntax like other fields={{Information field|name=Copyright Holder|value=Someone}} --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the "Additional_information" parameter?

I have tried multiple times to use this parameter, but it always gives the following error message.

"Error in template * unknown parameter name (Template:Information): 'additional_information' ".

For example, I tried adding the following to a photo I uploaded, but it fails with the above error message.

|additional_information=Note the photo has been retouched to remove the text showing through from the page's reverse side and to clean up the borders.

Note that I am adding this parameter after the file is already uploaded to Wikipedia, but should that make any difference? I am inserting the parameter before the double brace marks, and I have tried moving the parameter after the description instead of leaving it as the last parameter. I also tried enclosing the information after the equals sign in quotes. Zcarstvnz (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zcarstvnz: You have not saved any edits to files since November 2017 (this was the most recent). Even if an error message results, please save your edit so that we can examine exactly what you did to cause it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Please see File:Nancy Leiter, 1898.png which I just saved. I purposely did not save it with the broken parameter when I wrote the message above. I was afraid an administrator would just immediately delete it. Zcarstvnz (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zcarstvnz: The image is hosted on Commons, not on Wikipedia; hence the template that you used is their c:Template:Information, not our Template:Information. The syntax is different. The full parameter list is: |Author= |Date= |demo= |Description= |Other_fields= |Other_fields_1= |Other_versions= |Permission= |Source= - the first letter may be lowercased, and the underscores may be replaced by spaces.

No administrator would delete an image solely on the grounds of an unknown parameter name. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you for the explanation. For some reason the Wikipedia Template:Information was consistently coming up instead of the Commons version. Zcarstvnz (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of igniting a lot of concern, I was wondering if given the concerns elsewhere the wording of this template could be improved.

Would the following less confrontational wordings be better? :-

Description: "Do you have information on what this is? Why not leave a comment on the talk page? or help the uploader by discussing it with them."

Date: "Do you know when this media was created? Why not leave a comment on the talk page? or help the uploader by discussing it with them."

Author: "Do you know who created this media, or what's shown in the picture? Why not leave a comment on the talk page? or help the uploader by discussing it with them."

They are all broadly the same but shift the 'burden' somewhat, Not every uploader is a University level archivist! ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Request: On line 15, make the following change.

• Before: style="width:100%;"
• After: style="width:100%; padding: 5px;"

This is because the padding is 1.25em 1.75em on Timeless skin, making it too thick. Tried locally and see no impact on Vector/Monobook/MinervaNeue (mobile view). ネイ (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 04:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)